News:

"There is a terrible desperation to the increasingly pathetic rationalizations from the climate denial camp. This comes as no surprise if you take the long view; every single undone paradigm in history has died kicking and screaming, and our current petroleum paradigm 🐉🦕🦖 is no different. The trick here is trying to figure out how we all make it to the new ⚡ paradigm without dying ☠️ right along with the old one, kicking, screaming or otherwise." - William Rivers Pitt

Debate with a Fossil Fueler about Wind Power and the future of renewable energy:

Quote

Quote from: agelbert on Today at 01:09:31 PM

Wind energy will be available AND cheap as long as the earth rotates and the sun shines.

Quote

Lets discuss this for a minute, from the perspective of a power engineer running some portion of the grid somewhere for a moderate sized city.

I would love to. However what you want to discuss is not my statement, since that is not challengeable.

What you want to DISCUSS is the Amount of Energy available Instantly 24/7. You want to discuss that because you labor under the view that wind power cannot deliver X number of MW when your community, all of a sudden, from 10PM to 2AM Thursday night, needs them.

The issue of the rate is a separate one you cannot seem to let go of because you are STUCK in a paradigm of varying rates according to demand. This paradigm of yours is fossil fuel base load logic based and is going the way of the dodo bird.

Fossil Fuel (FF) plants have, say 80% base load capability 24/7. They WANT people to use that baseload but, of course, people DON'T during slack periods. Consequently, the FF utility tries, by super low rates during slack periods, to get people to use it. WHY? If you REALLY know anything about power usage, you know that, below baseload, a lot of SHUNTING (throwing MW AWAY) happens. The FF PIGS don't like that. They studied the communitee and built their pollution factory to get as high a base load 24/7 as possible. They never gave a flat **** about the needs of the community, just their ****ing bottom line and YOU KNOW IT!

When baseload is exceeded and they are in prime rate quickstart gas power plant territory, they are happy as pigs in poop to provide it. They have power sharing agreements with surrounding grid blood sucking utilities to get MORE power if they are maxed out above base and peak power plant capability. EVERYTHING ROTATES around PROFIT for the FF utility, NOT SERVICE.

That's what YOU live and die by. That's what YOU think is logical. That's what YOU think energy distribution is all about. That's why YOU JUST DO NOT UNDERSTAND WIND POWER.

Wind, like your ****ed up FF poison factories, is ALSO tied into the grid, which consequently, with the new electronics and computer monitoring, increase or decrease power output IRRESPECTIVE of some baseload criteria.

Baseload, beyond initial infrastructure design according to the community size, will NO LONGER be an issue although there will probably be a rate penalty for high use irrespective of the time you are using it.

The new renewable energy paradigm will NOT BE ABOUT THE COST OF ENERGY; It will be about the COST OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICE AND MAINTENANCE. For all practical purposes, the FUEL cost of energy itself will be ZERO so people are going to pay for the infrastructure as a service package with a TOP limit on energy use monitored by smart meters based on ENVIRONMENTAL considerations, not the baseload bottom line of the utility predatory capitalist "business model".

There isn't going to BE any "externalized cost" BULL**** for the environment to please "investors". The new business model will work more like a bond issue with the coupon based on a projected moderate profit from installation and maintenance of infrastructure, PERIOD.

I know, I'm speaking GREEK to you. Fine.

For an in depth look at the future of energy use and distribution, read this article. The author is an expert that knows far more about grid nuances than I do so you can argue with him about details.

What Happens When Energy Prices Are Zero?

Originally published on RenewEconomy.

Numerous studies tell us that 100% renewables is possible, and cost-effective.But how to structure an energy market where there is no fuel cost? Germany is already grappling with this dilemma, and the world is watching with interest. This is part of a series of articles on Germany Energiewende. More can be found in our Insight section.

One of the big questions about scenarios for 100 per cent renewable energy production is how to structure the energy market.

We now know that having electricity supplied to a major economy entirely by renewable energy sources is possible, and most likely no more expensive than building new fossil fuel generation.

What we don’t know is how to structure the energy market so it provides the right incentives: If the marginal cost of solar and wind energy is close enough to zero (because there is no fuel cost), then the energy price in a 100 per cent wind and solar market is going to be zero – at least in the current market structure. But who would invest?

1) The power to buy politicians and undermine democracies is lessened which, in turn, saves trillions of dollars in war profiteering and human misery.

2) A world at peace has a much more reliable infrastructure and investment climate. Stability attracts investors for a predictable, stable yield for Renewable Energy infrastructure bond issues.

The two factors above translate to the yield on the investment being a function of the price people pay for the infrastructure that brings them the energy, period. All this machinery has MTBF cycles and can be depreciated in a thirty or forty year accounting cycle.

People will pay for service, not the energy itself, even though, of course, the target for all of us is to be carbon-neutral so the environmental consideration will always affect the pricing structure to possibly penalize high energy cost based purely on environmental considerations, not the energy cost or the infrastructure.

I bring this up because Homo Sapiens is smart enough to set up a 100% renewable energy economy and proceed to overwhelm it through over use of this "free" energy. There is a biosphere out there we can no longer neglect. This time the environmental cost, and there always will be one, must be paid as we use that energy. We do not want a repeat of the greed gluttony of the fossil fuel industry and utility company "investor" profits that encouraged polluting energy and overuse of energy as well.

Just my two cents.

Remember what Thomas Edison said in 1931. He was a wise man but we did not do what he proposed because of greed, not because we couldn't develop the technology. We must look at energy as a part of life, to be used prudently, not as an unlimited "fuel" to be used willy nilly.

1931: Edison Advocates for Solar Energy over Fossil Fuels

In a conversation with fellow inventors and entrepreneurs Harvey Firestone and Henry Ford, Thomas Edison says of renewable energy sources: "We are like tenant farmers chopping down the fence around our house for fuel when we should be using nature’s inexhaustible sources of energy—sun, wind, and tide.… I’d put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we don’t have to wait until oil and coal run out before we tackle that." [US History, 2013; About Thomas Edison, 8/19/2013]

It's time to stopped chopping the fence around the house of ALL the earthlings we share this planet with. As self aware beings responsible for 100% of the environmental degradation, if we keep putting ourselves first, we are guilty of criminal negligence.

By the way, in your energy demand calculus you also left out the FACT that there will be NUMEROUS Renewable Energy technologies ALL LINKED from geothermal to solar to wind to biomass to ocean currents using various new storage technologies in addition to the old ones from hydropower to a plethora of battery, compressed air and inertia systems. It's NOT going to be about making energy SCARCE to charge people more. That's OVER. But I know you don't agree.

It's going to be about PRUDENT (as in, respecting the needs of the biosphere) energy use, not how much you can "afford" to buy.

For over a century, you fossil fuelers have gone WAY OUT OF YOUR WAY to destroy new energy technologies by hook or by crook. In the video are a few examples. Some might be pie in the sky but MOST of them are for real and are the DEATH KNELL of the war profiteering, murderous, "energy is scarce so we have to fight, kill for and hoard" ****ED UP world view the "apex predator" Intelli-MORONS among us love to CON we-the-people with.

In the 21st century, many countries are moving away from dependence on fossil fuels for their energy needs. A number of smaller countries have already reached 100% renewable energy, and many others are close to complete independence from fossil fuels.Some of the more notable achievements in our global pursuit of a future free of fossil fuels are:

•Iceland, which is 100% free of fossil fuels, got 26% of its energy from geothermal sources in 2009.

•At the end of June 2013, Germany’s total installed solar PV capacity was 31.19 GW, the highest in the world. Despite this solar success, however, Germany still remains dependent on some of its energy from fossil fuels.

•China’s spending to free itself from fossil fuels and develop more renewable energy may total 1.8 trillion yuan ($323 billion) in the five years through 2015 as part of the nation’s efforts to counter climate change.

•Nicaragua, which has set a goal to be 94% free of fossil fuels by 2017, aims to reduce its reliance on foreign oil from 70% to 6% by that time.

•Paraguay, one of the leading countries in the world claiming independence from fossil fuels, is 100% renewable but also exported 90% of its generated electricity (54.91 TWh) in 2008.

•By 2016, solar energy will bring electricity to 2 million Peruvians who currently do not have access to it and rely on dirty fossil fuels for cooking, lighting, and other energy needs.

A fossil fueler called MKing brought an interesting 2009 U.S. energy use graphic which uses "quads" for the energy units. When I told him the 2009 global energy demand was 18TW, I was not talking about QUADS but let's deal with the 2009 graphic.

2009 US ENERGY USE IN QUADS

About 39% of the total was electrical. The above shows what energy source provided the juice further "justifying" MKing's "perspective".

So what's the problem with MKing's "irrefutable" logic pointing to Renewable Energy being a DROP IN THE ENERGY BUCKET? (I seem to have had this SAME conversation with Nicole Foss about a year and a half ago...)

1) The US is not the whole planet. In fact our energy "policy" DOES NOT EXIST on a national scale. That puts the fossil fuel corporations in De Facto control of energy policy piggery.

That FACT makes us DIFFERENT and technologically and scientifically BEHIND every other developed country in the WORLD (including fossil fuel loving Russia!) in regard to energy policy and piggery in the light of global warming caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

The U.S. is NOT an example of the global energy trends (I'm CERTAIN MKing is aware of this). Using it as an example shows the deliberate intent to use an extreme of fossil fuel use as the planetary norm to undermine the facts about exponential Renewable Energy growth (when they aren't claiming that Renewable energy growth is LINEAR and therefore will take 500 years or so to replace fossil fuels!) and paint the fossil fuel driven economy as the be all, end all of a workable civilization.

It's quite clever. But it is false because it lacks perspective, not because the facts of the year 2009 for the U.S. are "false"; They are accurate.

However, 2007 to 2009 was the apex of fossil fuel piggery and projections for the U.S.! There was LESS before and LESS after in an increasing downward slope!

You would stare open mouthed if you could see the same pie chart above in 1940.Renewable Energy from hydropower reached 33% of our electrical grid penetration, a percentage we have yet to reach again (but a lot of good people are working on it!).

2) In 2009 the situation in Europe was the antithesis of the one in the U.S. as to Renewable Energy. MKing was obligated to show the rest of the planet but did not. If we are going to discuss planetary energy use, we need to include the whole ball of wax.

Now let's see what happened AFTER 2009:

Fossil Fueler wet dreams as projected to 2035 when the above graphic was enthusiastically prepared (and shown proudly at THE OIL DRUM web site, NO DOUBT! :evil4:) to make sure us treehugging renewable energy freaks "understood the REAL world".

Yes, unfortunately, PART of the above is coming to pass because of the Chinese energy explosion. But look what is happening in MKing's example (the U.S.) of fossil fuel energy love (see below).

And with the massive pollution problem in China, you KNOW that China line is peaking and will begin its inexorable descent if China, and the rest of the biosphere too, is to survive this climate clusterfuck.

Yes, MKing, I'm aware of the fact that the graph has CO2 emissions, not energy use. But when you are talking about fossil fuel use, CO2 emissions correlate exactly with burning fossil fuels. Don't try to pretend otherwise.But your fossil fuel pals are LOATHE to project trends any way but the way they want them to go. THIS IS YOUR PERSPECTIVE PROBLEM.

You scoffed at cost not being germane in the North Sea Platforms because THE PEOPLE, NOT BIG OIL, were made to pay for it. Your "perspective" is that IF you can get away with gaming the costs so YOU don't pay them, you have a viable business model. BULLSHIT!

The mafia has been around for a long, long time because, even they learned, like you fossil fuelers never seem to, that rampant, calloused predation will backfire on you and destroy your business.

Since it hasn't happened to your "business model" YET, you think it won't. Yeah, it's ALL ABOUT DISTORTED AND ARROGANT flawed perspective. But ,hey, you use renewable energy so I guess you have something going for you.

Well, these fine fellows have made an adjustment to their prevaricating projections (see below).Note the attempt to make the energy total in general (and fossil fuel use descent in particular) look like a hiccup! BULLSHIT!

In order to give fossil fuelers a reality check and a bit of heartburn too, I have consulted with the top scientist at the Agelbert Renewable Revolution Institute. He is a very learned man! I see him regularly whenever there is a mirror around.

Anyway, he used his top secret quantum computer to show what the U.S. energy consumption and breakdown of sources is projected to be from now to 2035.

Fossil Fuelers and Nuke Pukes will scoff publicly but they will sweat bullets privately!

But this isn't about whether "it would be nice but we just can't swing it due to fossil FOOL corporation power and piggery"; This is a matter of national security and national survival. We DO THIS or we ARE HISTORY, PERIOD.Pass it on. The planet you save may be your own.

“The earth’s crust does not move”- 19th through early 20th century accepted geological science.

“Radio has no future. Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. X-rays will prove to be a hoax.” — William Thomson, Lord Kelvin, British scientist, 1899.“There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will.” — Albert Einstein, 1932“The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives.” — Admiral William Leahy, U.S. Atomic Bomb Project

“If I had thought about it, I wouldn’t have done the experiment. The literature was full of examples that said you can’t do this.” — Spencer Silver on the work that led to the unique adhesives for 3-M “Post-It” Notepads.

“I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.” — Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943

“Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest. Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F.” — Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University in Time Magazine’s June 24th, 1975 article Another Ice Age?.

So the next time you hear about Scientifically, fastidiously, mathematically, data driven, empirical evidence projections of ENERGY USE BY SOURCE based on the STATUS QUO percentage breakdown in the PRESENT GAMED ENERGY "playing field" dominated by fossil fuel bought and paid for energy use projection modelers in and out of government, you might want to remember that just being an expert, or even having a consensus of experts, doesn’t necessarily mean that a claim is true. Agelbert's 2035 projection is Fartium, Hopium and UNSCIENTIFC TOO!

You might also consider that the derision and scorn directed at "outlier" projections like THIS ONEthat MKing and his Fossil Nuke pals consider story telling (mendacity) fartium and hopium, is based on the status quo perception limitations that can even affect intelligent and far seeing people like Einstein.

Sure, the derision among the fossil fuelers is based on FEAR too but good luck getting them to admit that. They don't operate in the reality based community; They firmly believe they can create their own reality, totally ignoring inconvenient things like the laws of thermodynamics and entropy.

They are used to ****ting where they eat. Up until now, the biosphere has accommodated all their industrial toxins without putting a dent in their profits. But people like Agelbert and many, many other humans out there realize that these predatory fools are heading for a Seneca Cliff. That is why my energy use modeling shows a parabolic descent of the use of fossil fuels.

I could show several historic examples of disruptive technology doing the same thing but MKing and his Predatory Fossil Fueler friends won't buy it because of the old "This time it's different TRICK". They falsely believe they can play whack-a-mole with Renewable Energy now like they did several decades ago.

They corked it in the 1980s and, like a pot of water on high heat, it is boiling over, throwing the lid of bribes, violence based repression, corruption and mendacious fossil fuel energy bull**** to the four winds. Anybody with a lick of sense can see the transition is NOT going to be linear; it's going to be somewhere between parabolic and exponential for the INCREASE in Renewable Energy share of the total demand as well as the DECREASE in the fossil and nuclear poison fuel use.

MKing cannot envisage this because he is OWNED by the perception of the status quo. So he scoffs and asks for minutiae and detailed analysis about a FUTURE that his pals want to continually game.

He won't admit that, of course. He is smug and sure that they WILL succeed in keeping Renewable Energy to a niche. He won't admit big oil gamed the last 50 years; why should he accept publicly the FACT that they want to game the next 50? No, he will claim it was all done in a level energy cost/supply cost/benefit playing field. Talk about story telling FARTIUM AND HOPIUM!

To show you how discomfited our pet fossil fueler that drives a Volt is by my 2035 projection, notice he did not even COMMENT that MY energy project TOTAL USE for the U.S. is essentially the SAME as the original chart by the "experts" that MKing respects.

Why did I accept their figures for the total? Because I think they recognized that the growth of total energy use is DEAD IN THE WATER because of so many new efficiencies brought on by new technology (see Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute for DETAILED scientific reports and analysis of this quantum leap in energy savings - that MKing doesn't talk about).

At any rate the modeling by "respected" status quo supporting GANGS of scientists is, by the 2035 U.S. Energy Use projection chart, admitting ONE NEW and SIGNIFICANT CHANGE in the energy use paradigm. That is that GDP GROWTH does NOT HAVE TO TRACK ENERGY TOTAL DEMAND. This is a HUGE admission for the "growth is IT " view of the predatory capitalist mindset.

I find that is a rational, realistic and highly probable scenario. I think most people reading this DON'T but, around 2017, take another look at this chart.

Mking and friends will say it was a lucky shot on my part. The quantum computer I have between my ears is no match for big oil and all the scientists working for them in and out of government so I'm just farting in the wind!

Finally, let's talk a little about the erroneous predictions from serious scientists above. What's the common denominator? The common denominator is NOT mendacity or bought and paid for bull****. These people really believed what they were saying and really were serious, dedicated scientists dealing in empirically reached conclusions only.

2) The ETHICAL thought process of these scientists (If we have something that works to do this or that, it is costly/stupid to replace it with this new stuff).

Other considerations like career positions and personal financial holdings certainly would prejudice even the best, clear thinking individual but that is not the common denominator UNLESS we are talking about mendacious propaganda (New Ice Age, anyone?).

Einstein was the smartest of the above bunch, wouldn't you agree? Einstein understood physics pretty well, I would say. He KNEW that messing with radioactivity and making a bomb and using fission to boil water was a low probability event that, though remotely possible, didn't make any sense whatsoever from a military or energy for civilization standpoint.

He was right. He still is right!

But the MKing PERSPECTIVE of the predatory capitalist "war profiteering, externalize the pollution and concentrate the profits in a few hands" was not something Einstein dealt in.

He was a REALITY BASED person. He had ETHICS. They dominated his view of a proper military and energy future. Only when he thought Hitler could get the bomb first did he relent.

Even so, that God Damned Bomb provided work for about 100,000 to 400,000 people in the USA during the height of the Depression when the money was sorely needed to help the starving, hard working millions victimized by Wall Street and the Bankers.

That's just fine for the MKings of this world. The BOMB created the cabal of fascists (protected from public scrutiny by the secrecy of atomic energy) that joined with Big Oil to fnish the transition of this country into a Fascist Police State.

That's cool for the MKings of this world too.

The massive negative inertia of pure calloused behavior and arrogance toward fellow humans with less power that this new technology created in the USA business establishment was the worse thing that ever happened to this country. It brought us the MIC, game theory, unbridled belief in might is right far beyond what the robber barons had believed in and a general disdain for socially humane solutions to human problems. MKing has no problem with that either. He may admit, as Bill gates does, that it is "unfortunate" that the poor get shafted as result of capitalism but that's just the way the cookie crumbles in REAL LIFE.

Now you may say that I am not a realist and neither was Einstein, someone I can never compare with mentally but I DO compare with ethically.

Einstein WAS a realist. So am I.

I'm telling you, as I'm sure Einstein would as well, that all this fossil fuel and nuclear crap destroying democracy and playing king of the ****ing hill is TEMPORARY. That is the historical record in meteoric climbs to power.

The descent FROM power is just as meteoric. MKing doesn't see that. Fossil fuelers don't see that. The MIC doesn't see that.

MKing thinks it's strory telling fartium and hopium to project the rapid end of COSTLY and TOXIC fuel industries. It's not. It's the MOST probable scenario because that is how it has ALWAYS GONE in the historical record when ossified, centralized, elite power has run into decentralized, distributed power. The fact that the dynamic is now thermodynamic as well as political just adds inertia to the rapidity of the CRASH ahead for dirty energy.

I don't give a flat **** what you think, MKing. However, I am gratified that you honored my chart with some ridicule. It shows I touched the RIGHT BUTTONS.

Have a nice day.

To all readers, don't hesitate to pass this on with or without attribution. Let the status quo worshippers know that that they are cruising for a bruising from Renewable Energy. Give them HELL!

It's what they deserve. This is what happens when these bankrupt energy paradigm true believers argue with you:

MKing said (after the silly attempt at ridicule, disparagement and IQ lowballing of Agelbert. :icon_mrgreen:)

Quote

Religious dogma?

Renewable zealotry?

Call it what you'd like, but the economists who built the model for the IEA certainly have answers for these kinds of questions.

My dear fossil fueler, I never said these worthy economists did NOT have the answers; I SAID they were making faulty projections, as the list of serious scientists I gave you in the last post but are SILENT about, DID.

They were RADICALLY mistaken because they projected the status quo into the future linearly. Do you have difficulty seeing that error? YEP! In fact, in regard to your following list of questions, you are avoiding the central issue here. And that is a COMPARISON of the two technologies at odds with each other.

The other day you said my "perspective" was wrong because I reasoned as to whether some technology (e,g. building North Sea Oil Drilling platforms) should, or should not have been built based on COST. Today, you are back to asking about cost. That's a bit contradictory, old bean.

I would prefer you were a bit more consistent in your demands for scientific, rational, empirical and THEREFORE credibie chart data. Your calculus seems to be a moving target based on "other" factors like who has the biggest gun (see your "rapacious is good :evil4:" comments).

Now you do agree, do you not, that you cannot have it both ways? Either your fossil fuel paradigm is held together with political power born of bribes, corruption, threats and violence because it cannot compete on an HONEST EROI energy playing field or it never needed any of that heavy handed **** because it is such a "blessing" (as in wonderful, cheap, superior concentration of energy, HIGH EROI, etc. ).

So what do you call the big oil bull**** and propaganda lie a minute machine (nuke pukes too)? INSURANCE?

Why do you find my conclusion that the FACT that they spend millions each year to bribe, bully and produce pie in the fossil fuel sky projections like the ones you worship (with all the appropriate economic terms and buzzwords for the APPROVED formulation designed to provide CREDIBILITY), is DE FACTO proof that fossil fuels are NOT COMPETITIVE with Renewable Energy so RELIGOUS and IRRATIONAL?

Look in the mirror for closed minded, rigid, status quo projecting erroneous assumptions, PAL! YOU are the zealot here, not me! Every time I have zeroed in on the gaming, you dance around the low EROI and claim that the rapacious predatory **** is just fine and dandy.

Fossil Fueler DEMANDS some NUMBER CRUNCHING from Agelbert! :

Quote

Hell, how about just a cost of supply curve for the renewables involved?

Income elasticities would be nice to see.

Assumptions on Chinese vehicle growth, and efficiency?

How about non-OECD GDP projections, and assumptions of elasticity there?

Capital availability for the development of your renewable scenario?

Do you have these in tables Agelbert, or perhaps a spreadsheet?

And the model, do you have some documentation written up and available for review parked somewhere?

When you explain to my satisfaction WHY you feel the heavy handed tactics of Big Oil are not MENS REA because they have an INFERIOR ENERGY PRODUCT as compared with Renewable Energy, I will be glad to shower you with detailed data, discuss cost, supply, elasticity, present value, sunk costs, various depreciation mechanisms and anHONEST application of GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) AND thermodynamics in formulating a reality based EROI.

But, until you DO THAT, the answers to those questions are for me to know and you to find out.

WHY?Because I REALLY want to get OUT OF THE WAY the stupid, false and misleading idea that fossil fuels are a better deal than Renewable Energy, not 10 years from now or twenty, but ALWAYS!

At that point we may found common ground in agreeing that, given certain predatory capitalist/fascist police state tactics, they very well might strong arm Renewable Energy out of prime time by all sorts of low down corrupt tactics.

However, I feel THAT FUTURE up to 2035, as the chart you so respect attempts to justify as the most probable scenario, is an outlier, is irrational and reflects a low probability and environmentally catastrophic, future.

Sure, the elite may go for that because the world popuiation can be chopped in half or more that way.

But that has NOTHING to do with sound economics, elasticity, cost/supply, EROI or CFS. IT has EVERYTHING TO DO with rapacious, power mad insanity.

Wear and tear on equipment costs millions, but fuel savings are worth billions.

by John Timmer - Sept 24 2013,

Energy

The variability of renewable energy sources like solar and wind has raised concerns about how well the US electrical grid could tolerate high levels of them. Some of the early estimates suggested that the grid couldn't handle having more than 20 percent of its electricity coming from intermittent sources without needing a major overhaul.But thanks to improved practices and a bit of experience, several states are already pushing that 20 percent limit well in advance of having a smart grid in place.

Adjusting for intermittent power sources primarily comes from cycling traditional fossil fuel plants on and off to match supply with demand. And that cycling has a cost in terms of wear and tear to equipment and fuel burned without producing electricity.

So the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) produced a series of studies to look at these costs and how they compared to the savings in fuel that doesn't get burned. The answer: the cost is a tiny fraction of the ultimate savings.

Solar and wind power have very distinct profiles.

Solar varies the most over the course of a day, but the general outline of solar production is very predictable even if the total power delivered varies a bit with cloud cover.

Wind tends to be steadier, but the total amount being produced can change at any time of day.

To compensate for this variability, electricity suppliers essentially have to turn sources on and off. Since wind and solar have minimal operating costs—they burn no fuel—attention turns to coal and natural gas. Depending on the design of the plant, switching them on or off entails a variety of costs. Fuel gets burned without producing electricity when the plants cycle up, and a changing state entails an increased level of wear-and-tear on the equipment. Some of this went on before renewables entered the mix, but solar and wind are clearly increasing the frequency.

So, what are the costs? To find out, NREL commissioned a company called APTECH that had previously been hired by plant operators to estimate these costs. With these costs in hand, the NREL team analyzed the grid in the Western US under a number of different scenarios where intermittent renewables accounted for 33 percent of the total power. These scenarios included an even split between wind and solar sources and both 25 percent/eight percent (wind/solar and solar/wind) splits.

As expected, costs did go up. Cycling the fossil fuel plants added between $0.47 and $1.28 to each MegaWatt hour generated. Over the course of a year in the Western US grid, that adds up to between $35 and $157 million, a boost of between 13 and 24 percent.

That's the bad news. The rest is pretty much good. The fuel savings from not running the fossil fuel plants adds up to $7 billion , meaning the added costs are, at most, two percent of the savings. The fuel burned when spinning up the fossil fuel plants also makes a minimal contribution to pollution, either in the form of CO2 or in terms of nitrogen and sulfur compounds.

Perhaps the most significant news, however, is that the worst problems come earlier in the transition to renewables. "In terms of cycling costs," the report notes, "there may be a big step in going from 0 percent to 13 percent wind/solar but a much smaller step in going from 13 percent to 33 percent." In other words, once the percentage of renewables reaches a critical point, then the amount of adjustments we have to make becomes incremental.

This doesn't yet mean that all renewable power is cost effective compared to fossil fuels; wind is very close, but solar is a bit further. With current trends, however, we're only a few years away from that point.

And this report indicates that once we get there, there won't be any significant additional costs to adding them to the grid.

Agelbert NOTE: Actually, I would correct that last sentence to point out there will be significant additional costs to delaying the increased percentage of renewable energy!

WHY? Which smart grid technology, power sharing among neighboring grids and new storage technology from compressed air to battery to inertia (flywheel) storage, keeping old burners maintained won't be worth it (unless they can be converted from coal to biomass)..

Have you noticed they DID mention lost energy for spin up above but didn't mention shunting? Shunting is when a utility is trying to cut it real close on baseload "cheap" coal or nuke power so it doesn't have to use as much from the rapid spin up power plants run on natural gas which costs a bit more. When you are running a high baseload and the demand goes BELOW baseload, you CANNOT slow down a nuke or a coal plant quickly so you shunt the juice to some massive resistance (you throw it away!).

Utilities don't care about this waste because they just make it up with their rates to YOU. The bottom line is utilities LIKE to run full tilt because they make more money that way. That is why they are loathe to set up smart grids that would NEGATE the need for a high baseload!

The excuse they use is that renewable is too "intermittent". They claim they need to supply demand spikes and no way can they even guarantee a baseload common denominator to accurately figure the demand spike on and off power they need.

That simply is not true. Do you know they could have set up giant capacitor technology around nukes and never did because shunting into a massive resistance is cheaper? And WHY is it "cheaper" to throw away power than saving that "over the top" power for later? Because YOU pay for the 4.5 to 6 year MTBF fuel rod baby sitting for a few centuries after she can't boil water up to 600C or so. Such a deal!

Please understand this folks. Utilities HATE RENEWABLE ENERGY, not because it is intermittent, but because they cannot justify a high baseload coal or nuke piggery with smart grid technology.

Look at my last post on LED street lighting to see how they are NOT interested in saving energy. It's ALL about gaming the output to JUSTIFY high energy costs and collect a profit on them. Putting street lights on LED is a royal kick in the nuts to utility baseload wet dreams. Worse yet for them, LED with smart grid technology is NOT as voltage sensitive as the old street light power hogs that would blow or brown out if your voltage or frequency got too strange. Juice sucking street lights JUSTIFIES high baseload fossil fuel or nuke, steady as she goes, high output and profits (and CO2 out the ying yang too!). LED street lights DON'T.

With 50% plus "intermittent" wind and solar on a smart grid, the computer KNOWS where every single street light is and if there is a human or car anywhere near it and shuts it down instantly as power is waxing and waning. Yes, some biofuel baseload will probably need to be available for unusual demands but that will be a the niche power source.

If demand goes up at ten pm when the sun is down, 80% of the LED street lights can be light lowered in an instant with no damage whatsoever. And then there are all the electric cars plugged in to the grid at ten p.m. ready to add to demand spike needs. Computers can handle all this. Don't let the fossil fuelers tell you any different.

Utilities want to have an excuse to run high baseload power so they can claim renewables can't cut it. It's bull****. They just want to burn more fossil fuels and charge YOU for it.

Don't let them get away with. Support 100% renewable energy in your state with biomass fired plants and storage technologies. We do NOT need the nukes or the fossil fuels, period!

Conservatives Launch Renewable Energy Group in Michigan! Is this a typo? No, but I read the article over several times to make sure.

According to Michigan Live, several Republicans have formed the Michigan Conservative Energy Forum to reduce coal use in the state while increasing energy efficiency and renewable energy.

On their facebook page, the group says, "the state must transition to clean, renewable energy sources"and that they plan to facilitate a dialogue that depoliticizes the issue." Great news!

"For too long, we have allowed the energy discourse to be dominated by the left," Larry Ward, executive director of the Forum and former political director of the Michigan Republican Party, told Michigan Live. "Conservatives have sat on the sidelines for far too long."

Unfortunately, Conservatives haven't just sat on the sidelines, they have been actively blocking programs that would reduce coal use and increase renewable energy. On the national level, a slew of conservative groups are leading the helm from ALEC to Americans for Prosperity. In Michigan, a voter referendum that would have raised the state's Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) failed because of the usual reasons: a pile of money poured into the state spreading misinformation.

The Forum wants Michigan to diversify its energy supply to include wind, solar, hydro, biomass, landfill gas, natural gas, nuclear and some coal.

"This is exactly what the Republican Party needs to be relevant for the next generation of voters," Michael Stroud, co-chair of the Michigan Federation of College Republicans, told Michigan Live.

Governor Snyder is holding a roundtable discussion today on Michigan's energy policies. After the referendum failed, he called for a one-year study on the state's energy future. Several public forums were held across the state and four reports were submitted to the governor. One of them shows that it's feasible for Michigan to reach 30% renewable energy by 2035.

The referendum would have raised the state's RPS from the current target of 10% renewable energy by 2015 - which utilities are on track to meet at much lower cost than expected - to 25% by 2025.

Michigan is one of a bunch of states that's been in the news because wind power costs less than that from a new coal plant. Because of that, the utility, Consumers Energy, has cut the monthly surcharge that pays the cost of meeting Michigan's RPS and now wants to eliminate it. Over the past two years, they reduced the surcharge from $2.50 a month to just 52 cents.

New Hampshire, USA -- Every day we applaud and encourage all types of renewable energy development and deployment, in whatever forms make the most sense for their application: distributed solar PV, offshore wind, biomass conversions, hydropower (and hydro storage), geothermal. But what about those at the edge of our universe, the ones really pushing renewable energy to its limits?

During this holiday season as we reflect on the accomplishments of the past year and prepare to look ahead into 2014, we also take time to salute those who peer even further into the distance, envisioning where renewable energy can go -- and it's to some really interesting and far-out places. Some of them may be a little hard to bring to fruition, but all of them get us thinking about what's possible, and that's where the best ideas start.

To the Moon!

Since solar energy comes from the sun, why not cut out part of the middleman? Japanese engineering and construction firm Shimizu envisions the "Luna Ring," a 11,000-km belt of solar panels encircling the moon's equator, in a width from just "a few kilometers to 400 km." Power harvested from the sun would be transmitted via to enormous (20-km diameter) wireless antennas, and shot out to earth via 20-GHz microwaves, with radio beacons ensuring accurate transmission. Alongside, high-density lasers would be beamed to offshore facilities on Earth to be concentrated by a Fresnel lens and mirrors to generate solar PV power; the lasers' thermal energy would be harvested as well. Receivers and massive cabling on Earth would convert all of that into electric power, to be supplied to grids and for conversion of hydrogen. The moon itself would be tapped to produce resources to make the solar cells and panels and construction materials. Robots would perform most of the tasks, and the equipment would be assembled in space and lowered to the surface for installation.

The Luna Ring reportedly would supply up to 13,000 terawatts of power, or what Shimizu says would match the world's energy demand by 2030. Exploration would begin within the next few years, followed by a pilot demo both on Earth and the moon in the next decade, and construction beginning in 2035.

If lunar solar installs seem a bit too risky, how about orbiting solar projects? One company has NASA backing to use robots for building structures in orbit... using the most popular concept running, "additive manufacturing" -- essentially melting a metal (or plastics, in less fancy versions) in precise patterns to build up a tough finished product. The Trusselator and the "SpiderFab" would enable fabrication of carbon fiber truss structures, including solar arrays and other structures like antennae and transmitters with "kilometer-scale apertures," to help enable lower-cost space exploration and development.

Is There a Draft?

One of the more unusual ideas we've noticed in the past year is a proposal to build a downdraft chimney: sun-heated air at the top of a massive tower is cooled with a mist of water, channeled and accelerated down through the structure and out via numerous turbines at the bottom. The company, Solar Wind Energy Tower (SWET), has been approved by the City of San Luis, Arizona (just this side of the border with Mexico) for development rights to develop two of its downdraft towers, and recently signed a "letter of intent to enter into a definitive agreement" to purchase a 3,200-acre site in Mexico with "ideal attributes" for two more towers. They've also begun looking at a site in Chile's Atacama Desert, and claim interest from groups in India, South Africa, and Brazil.

The concrete tower itself would be 2,250 feet high, making it easily the planet's second-tallest structure ever built (Dubai's Burj Khalifa is tops at 2722 feet) -- and that's a significant downscale from initial designs of 3,000 feet. The base alone would be 1,500 feet at the base. Proposed yield would be 600 MWh, but a chunk of that would be used to operate the tower so the actual yield available to the grid would average around 435 MWh hourly. Proposed costs for such a tower is $1 billion, plus another $100 million to pipe in water from Mexico, plus some unspecified amount to build a desalination plant. Earlier this month the company clarified that it isn't proposing to build these massive structures itself; it just wants to license the technology to evaluate sites, and take development fees and royalties based on the tower's output.

There are significant questions about all this, from the challenges scaling up such a project (reportedly straight from a 4-foot model to full king-size) to the physics and costs involved with obtaining and pumping the water at these identified desert sites, though allegedly there would be systems in place to reuse most of what's used. A far smaller structure based on similar principles was built in Spain in the 1980s, worked for a few years at 50 kW max output, and then blew over; a 200-kW structure is currently in operation in China. Neither of them, nor a few other planned proposals, are remotely close to the scale that SWET is proposing. Moreover, other companies are pursuing solar updraft towers in Arizona at smaller scales.

Here is SWET's CEO recently describing the technology & business model, and how they arrive at projections of $18 million annually in royalty fees from each tower, how the company will be "cash-flow positive on the first project" -- and why the stock is currently trading at under a penny.

Giant concrete towers not so feasible? How about swapping all that concrete for some hot air? The man behind Richard Branson's continent-soaring balloon travails wants to alter the design from a massive permanent fixed updraft tower to an inflatable fabric-based tower. The proposed structure would be a 130-MW power station as much as 1-km high (3,280 feet), with roughly 25 percent capacity factor producing 281 GWh/year of electricity -- but at a comparative bargain investment of about $20 million.

Why Not Drones?

Amazon got a lot of buzz a few weeks ago for unveiling its dreams of a drone-powered package delivery service. But just fulfilling warehouse orders for Mr. & Mrs. John Q InternetSurfer might be ok for some drones, why not give them a higher purpose? A U.K. company wants to send them forth into the skies to harvest energy for us back down here on terraria. New Wave Energy says its 65 x 65 ft drones, supersized versions of the delightful copters found in Brookstone et al., would be rigged out with wind turbines and solar panels, sent up to heights of 50,000 feet to generate up to 50-kW of energy to be wirelessly beamed back to Earth. Thus, 8,000 of these buggers aloft in a group would be a 400 MW power plant. Alternatively, smaller-scale groupings would be perfect for deployments such as disaster relief. They suggest it'll cost £32 million and five years of development to reach commercial viability, which they compare favorably against a new Boeing 747. First things first, though: they plan to seek roughly $500,000 through Kickstarter crowdfunding.

Hydro City

OK, a man-made island for pumped hydro is pretty ambitious. So how about a pumped hydro storage system that floats?

Canadian firm Humpback Hydro is designing a platform with holding tanks that sits just "meters offshore" near the demand centers that need them most. (Cue the same argument for offshore wind, which presumably would fit nicely with this concept.) Water is pumped from the surrounding ocean or lake into the tanks, run through turbines, and then sent back into the source. It's said to be scalable from 1MW up to and even exceeding 1 GW. The company is working with the National Research Council of Canada to develop a scale-model pilot project and then one out in the field.

In case that quick elevator pitch didn't swing you, try this: they also propose to put wind turbines and solar panels on these structures for additional benefit (including powering the pumps themselves). They could also be used for desalination. And if built big enough, they'd even be able to support housing and commercial developments.

Blimps: The Civilized way to Transport

This one we first heard about at last spring's AWEA conference in Chicago. Aeros has been designing airships for transporting heavy cargo "from point-of-origin to point-of-need," cutting out all the middleman transportation infrastructure, time, and costs. Its Aeroscraft dramatically changes the game of large-scale logistics, and trust us: it looks extremely cool: cruising along at 100-120 knots at up to 12,000 ft altitudes, with 3,100 nautical mile range.

Their lowest-hanging fruit is in military and disaster recovery applications, and they just signed a deal with a European cargo firm. But they've also expressed a desire to work in renewable energy -- for example, lifting and hauling the entire wind turbine structure and components directly from the factory to a project site, even those that aren't prepared or are uneven. (Think of the highway bottlenecks that would avoid.) A key feature of the Aeros is that it can offload cargo without reballasting to stay grounded.

The company says it's still a few years away from having a 66-ton airship ready to haul wind turbine blades, but they've already projected that they can slash equipment transportation costs by two-thirds.

Solar in the Desert

We've all seen the modeling: a stamp-sized solar array in the Sahara could theoretically generate enough power for the entire planet, notwithstanding challenges in construction or interconnection or financing. The Desertec Initiative (DII) was created for the slightly less grand purpose of just getting enough juice from that desert to power supply some of Europe's power needs.

This summer the initiative ran into some controversy, though, as the Desertec Foundation decided to part ways with DII citing "many irresolvable disputes between the two entities in the area of future strategies, obligations and their communication and last but not least the managerial style of Dii’s top management." The group further cited a desire to distance itself from what it called a "maelstrom of negative publicity" surrounding those conflicts, which it said "led to resentment among the partners of the DESERTEC Foundation." Nonetheless DII is committed to staying the path, pointing to a new arm in France and a European Commission working document urging cooperation in renewable energy, as well as support from economic development interests in the MENA region, and a new partner: China's State Grid Corp. And earlier this month the EC offered to back half of the costs of a feasibility study on a desert energy project between Italy and North African nations.

While the news about climate change seems to get worse every day, the rapidly improving technology, declining costs, and increasing accessibility of clean energy is the true bright spot in the march toward a zero-carbon future. 2013 had more clean energy milestones than we could fit on one page, but here are 13 of the key breakthroughs that happened this year.

1. Using salt to keep producing solar power even when the sun goes down. Helped along by the Department of Energy’s loan program, Solana’s massive 280 megawatt (MW) solar plant came online in Arizona this October, with one unique distinction: the plant will use a ‘salt battery’ that will allow it to keep generating electricity even when the sun isn’t shining. Not only is this a first for the United States in terms of thermal energy storage, the Solana plant is also the largest in the world to use to use parabolic trough mirrors to concentrate solar energy.

2. Electric vehicle batteries that can also power buildings. Nissan’s groundbreaking “Vehicle-To-Building” technology will enable companies to regulate their electricity needs by tapping into EVs plugged into their garages during times of peak demand. Then, when demand is low, electricity flows back to the vehicles, ensuring they’re charged for the drive home. With Nissan’s system, up to six electric vehicles can be plugged into a building at one time. As more forms renewable energy is added to the grid, storage innovations like this will help them all work together to provide reliable power.

3. The next generation of wind turbines is a gamechanger. May of 2013 brought the arrival of GE’s Brilliant line of wind turbines, which bring two technologies within the turbines to address storage and intermittency concerns. An “industrial internet” communicates with grid operators, to predict wind availability and power needs, and to optimally position the turbine. Grid-scale batteries built into the turbines store power when the wind is blowing but the electricity isn’t needed — then feed it into the grid as demand comes along, smoothing out fluctuations in electricity supply. It’s a more efficient solution to demand peaks than fossil fuel plants, making it attractive even from a purely business aspect. Fifty-nine of the turbines are headed for Michigan, and two more will arrive in Texas.

4. Solar electricity hits grid parity with coal. A single solar photovoltaic (PV) cell cost $76.67 per watt back in 1977, then fell off a cliff. Bloomberg Energy Finance forecast the price would reach $0.74 per watt in 2013 and as of the first quarter of this year, they were actually selling for $0.64 per watt. That cuts down on solar’s installation costs — and since the sunlight is free, lower installation costs mean lower electricity prices. And in 2013, they hit grid parity with coal: In February, a Southwestern utility agreed to purchase electricity from a New Mexico solar project for less than the going rate for a new coal plant. Unsubsidized solar power reached grid parity in countries such as Italy and India. And solar installations have boomed worldwide and here in America, as the lower module costs have drivendown installation prices.

5. Advancing renewable energy from ocean waves. With the nation’s first commercial, grid-connected underwater tidal turbine successfully generating renewable energy off the coast of Maine for a year, the Ocean Renewable Power Company (ORPC) has its sights set on big growth. The project has invested more than $21 million into the Maine economy and an environmental assessment in March found no detrimental impact on the marine environment. With help from the Department of Energy, the project is set to deploy two more devices in 2014. In November, ORPC was chosen to manage a wave-energy conversion project in remote Yakutat, Alaska. And a Japanese delegation visited the project this year as the country seeks to produce 30 percent of its total power offshore by 2030.

6. Harnessing ocean waves to produce fresh water. This year saw the announcement of Carnegie Wave Energy’s upcoming desalination plant near Perth, Australia. It will use the company’s underwater buoy technology to harness ocean wave force to pressurize the water, cutting out the fossil-fuel-powered electric pumps that usually force water through the membrane in the desalination process. The resulting system — “a world first” — will be carbon-free, and efficient in terms of both energy and cost. Plan details were completed in October, the manufacturing contract was awarded in November, and when it’s done, the plant will supply 55 billion litters of fresh drinking water per year.

7. Ultra-thin solar cells that break efficiency records. Conversion efficiency is the amount of light hitting the solar cell that’s actually changed into electricity, and it’s typically 18.7 percent and 24 percent. But Alta Devices, a Silicon Valley solar manufacturer, set a new record of 30.8 percent conversion efficiency this year. Its method is more expensive, but the result is a durable and extremely thin solar cell that can generate a lot of electricity from a small surface area. That makes Alta’s cells perfect for small and portable electronic devices like smartphones and tablets, and the company is in discussions to apply them to mobile phones, smoke detectors, door alarms, computer watches, remote controls, and more.

8. Batteries that are safer, lighter, and store more power. Abundant and cost-effective storage technology will be crucial for a clean energy economy — no where more so than with electric cars. But right now batteries don’t always hold enough charge to power automobiles for extended periods, and they add significantly to bulk and cost. But at the start of 2013, researchers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory successfully demonstrated a new lithium-ion battery technology that can store far more power in a much smaller size, and that’s safer and less prone to shorts. They used nanotechnology to create an electrolyte that’s solid, ultra-thin, and porous, and they also combined the approach with lithium-sulfur battery technology, which could further enhance cost-effectiveness.

9. New age offshore wind turbines that float. Offshore areas are prime real estate for wind farms, but standard turbines require lots of construction and are limited to waters 60 meters deep or less. But Statoil, the Norwegian-based oil and gas company, began work this year on a hub of floating wind turbines off the coast of Scotland. The turbines merely require a few cables to keep them anchored, and can be placed in water up to 700 meters. That could vastly expand the amount of economically practical offshore wind power. The hub off Scotland will be the largest floating wind farm in the world — and two floating turbines are planned off the coast of Fukushima, Japan, along with the world’s first floating electrical substation.10. Cutting electricity bills with direct current power. Alternating current (AC), rather than direct current (DC) is the dominant standard for electricity use. But DC current has its own advantages: It’s cheap, efficient, works better with solar panels and wind turbines, and doesn’t require adaptors that waste energy as heat. Facebook, JPMorgan, Sprint, Boeing, and Bank of America have all built datacenters that rely on DC power, since DC-powered datacenters are 20 percent more efficient, cost 30 percent less, and require 25 to 40 percent less floorspace. On the residential level, new USB technology will soon be able to deliver 100 watts of power, spreading DC power to ever more low voltage personal electronics, and saving homes inefficiency costs in their electricity bill.

11. Commercial production of clean energy from plant waste is finally here. Ethanol derived from corn, once held up as a climate-friendly alternative to gasoline, is under increasing fire. Many experts believe it drives up food prices, and studies disagree on whether it actually releases any less carbon dioxide when its full life cycle is accounted for. Cellulosic biofuels, promise to get around those hurdles, and 2013 may be when the industry finally turned the corner. INOES Bio’s cellulosic ethanol plant in Florida and KiOR’s cellulosic plant in Mississippi began commercial production this year. Two more cellulosic plants are headed for Iowa, and yet another’s being constructed in Kansas. The industry says 2014′s proposed cellulosic fuel mandate of 17 million gallons will be easily met.

12. Innovative financing bringing clean energy to more people. In D.C., the first ever property-assessed clean energy (PACE) project allows investments in efficiency and renewables to be repaid through a special tax levied on the property, which lowers the risk for owners. Crowdfunding for clean energy projects made major strides bringing decentralized renewable energy to more people — particularly the world’s poor — and Solar Mosaic is pioneering crowdfunding to pool community investments in solar in the United States. California figured out how to allow customers who aren’t property owners or who don’t have a suitable roof for solar — that’s 75 percent of the state — to nonetheless purchase up to 100 percent clean energy for their home or business. Minnesota advanced its community solar gardens program, modeled after Colorado’s successful initiative. And Washington, D.C., voted to bring in virtual net metering, which allows people to buy a portion of a larger solar or wind project, and then have their portion of the electricity sold or credited back to the grid on their behalf, reducing the bill.

13. Wind power is now competitive with fossil fuels. “We’re now seeing power agreements being signed with wind farms at as low as $25 per megawatt-hour,” Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley’s head of North American Equity Research for Power & Utilities and Clean Energy, told the Columbia Energy Symposium in late November. Byrd explained that wind’s ongoing variable costs are negligible, which means an owner can bring down the cost of power purchase agreements by spreading the upfront investment over as many units as possible. As a result, larger wind farms in the Midwest are confronting coal plants in the Powder River Basin with “fairly vicious competition.” And even without the production tax credit, wind can still undercut many natural gas plants. A clear sign of its viability, wind power currently meets 25 percent of Iowa’s energy needs and is projected to reach a whopping 50 percent by 2018.

The National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) released a report – 2012 Renewable Energy Data Book – in October of 2013 regarding the status of renewable energy globally and in the US. The report has an abundance of great charts and, in reading through the pages, I discovered that renewable energy accounts for 23% of all electricity generation worldwide (4,892 TWh) (on page 41). I’ve brought out a few of the relevant charts and findings. I hope you enjoy them as much as I do.

In 2012, Germany led the world in cumulative solar photovoltaic installed capacity, reports the NREL. The United States leads the world in geothermal and biomass installed capacity. China leads in wind, and Spain leads in solar thermal electric generation (STEG). The following is from the 2012 Renewable Energy Data Book:

Zach mentioned the weakness of this chart is that it doesn’t address the per capita or per GDP leaders. From his post, 18 Fun Renewable Energy Charts From NREL Director Dan Arvizu & Ren21′s Renewables 2013 Global Status Report, he offered the latest on those for wind and solar:

Agelbert NOTE: I realize most of the data does not include 2013 but I just want to add to the good news about the massive 400 MW hydroelectric dam just completed in Bui, Ghana.

Flag of Ghana

But even before that, Ghana is way ahead of most countries in the world in renewable energy.

Total Electrical Grid capacity (2012) = 14,675 GW

Share of fossil energy = 0%

Share of renewable energy (hydro, bio energy, thermal energy) = 99%

Share of renewable energy (solar, wind energy) = 1%

Perhaps they aren't praised as much as countries like Denmark because of this: Ghana produces 200,000 barrels of crude oil per day on average.

Never the less, this PV project now being built shows they should be touted as a great example of a country transitioning to 100% renewable energy:The biggest photovoltaic (PV) and largest solar energy plant in Africa, the Nzema project, based in Ghana, will be able to provide electricity to more than 100,000 homes. The 155 megawatt plant will increase Ghana's electricity generating capacity by 6%.One more thing. Ghana burns zero coal for electrical or any other purpose! That is also praiseworthy.

The Fossil Fuelers are going HATE this plan to make New York State 100% powered by renewable energy by 2030! That's even ahead of my 2035 (less than 100%) prediction! Excellent!

Examining the feasibility of converting New York State’s all-purpose energy infrastructure to one using wind, water, and sunlight

a b s t r a c t

This study analyzes a plan to convert New York State’s (NYS’s) all-purpose (for electricity, transportation, heating/cooling, and industry) energy infrastructure to one derived entirely from wind,water, and sunlight (WWS) generating electricity and electrolytic hydrogen.

Under the plan, NYS’s 2030 all-purpose end-use power would be provided by

10% on shore wind (4020 5-MW turbines),

40% off shore wind (12,700 5-MW turbines),

10% concentrated solar (387 100-MW plants),

10% solar-PV plants (828 50-MW plants),

6% residential roof top PV (5 million 5-kW systems),

12% commercial/ government roof top PV (500,000 100-kW systems),

5% geothermal (36 100-MW plants),

0.5% wave (1910 0.75-MW devices),

1% tidal (2600 1-MW turbines), and

5.5% hydroelectric (6.6 1300-MW plants, of which 89% exist ). At most, about 944 MW of additional installed hydroelectric will be needed. See pdf for explanation of "6.6" hydroelectric plants meaning.

Mined natural gas and liquid biofuels are excluded from the NYS plan for the reasons given in the pdf link below. Jacobson and Delucchi (2011) explain why nuclear power and coal with carbon capture are also excluded.

The conversion would reduce NYS’s end-use power demand 37% and stabilize energy prices since fuel costs would be zero.

It would create more jobs than lost because nearly all NYS energy would now be produced in-state.

NYS air pollution mortality and its costs would decline by 4000 (1200–7600) deaths/yr, and $33(10–76) billion/yr (3% of 2010 NYS GDP), respectively, alone repaying the 271 GW installed power needed within 17 years, before accounting for electricity sales.